Talk:sorceror

RFV discussion: May–September 2012
Is "sorceror" really a legitimate alternative spelling? Axl (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to cite them right now, but Google Books has a plethora of hits, including books by Harper & Row and Macmillan. It certainly needs an entry; what makes you think it's not a legitimate alternative spelling?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * sorcerer says sorceror is a misspelling. Siuenti (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The only results that comes up for "sorceror" in One Look are us and Urban Dictionary (Wikipedia and TFD appear, but if you actually click the links it takes you to "sorcerer"). I think this is clearly a misspelling - no dictionary contains "sorceror". It does seem common enough for an though. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's a misspelling. I note that a number of the top b.g.c. hits for "sorceror" are actually for "sorcerer" (cases where someone messed up the metadata), and that even in hits that do use "sorceror", many are from works that also use "sorcerer". That is not typical for alternative spellings, even rare ones. —Ruakh TALK 22:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree from what I saw on Google Books. Many usages are by authors with foreign-sounding names, who from my G.Books experience are more likely to make mistakes or use non-standards forms. Equinox ◑ 23:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Replaced definition with . ~ Robin (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Tag removed by, who has the right to withdraw his/her nomination. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)